Separate Canon case is showing as $699 today from B&H and Adorama. $649 was too much of a bargain I guess! Not including a case would be just stupid on Canon's part. It is the best way to get the lens in for service to CPS IMHO and there would be needless damages made to the lens in the first year. Public responses have to be at least somewhat of a priority to Canon. My guess is a separate SKU for the case allows those who want more than one; maybe for an on-location case and one for inside storage. Reaching for straws here. Also, I guess cases could get destroyed going to far-flung world destinations so a replacement case would be warranted though I'd imagine third party cases would be available and made excellently for under the $699 mark.

Stop with the smaller DSLRs with the 18mp sensors and make a FF that can match the D800 at a price point the 7D crowd can get into. You will not regret it.

For profissionals the 12k isn't a problem. but me... i won't get it ever.

Just wait!

I bought a good working used Kodak DCS 460 for $100. Its original price was $35,500 in 1995. Prices do come down, so in 50 years or so, you might be able to afford one.

Live on for 50 years ... that's asking much

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony

From price point of view, this lens sits between the 400 2.8 ii and 600 4.0 ii. it combines the shorter FL with the slower aperture.

At the wide end, a 200 4.0 isnt really spectacular, its available for about $1200, means for this amount a 400 2.8 and a 70-200is is available. if a speed of 4.0 is enough, a 500 4.0 looks like a bargin and with a 1.4 ext and a 2nd body its as flexible and gives more reach.

so the new lens would be fine but for this price its really specialised, and only an answer if 200-300mm cant be done with a 2nd, way cheaper lens. If it would be priced between the 300 2.8 and 500 4.0 it would be more interesting. as far as i know, the Nikon is prised in this range, but not sure about this.

to price it logically, the price must be reduced by 25% or the priced of the other teles must be increased the same amount, so its our guess what canon might do if the new lens wïll be no success

WOWZERS! $11,799! That is one hell of a hefty price for a mere 200-400mm lens. I understand this baby was highly anticipated, and the Nikon version is highly prized by wildlife shooters...but nearly twelve grand? OUCH.

This puppy damn well better perform like a sun of a gun (and, according to Andy Rouse, it DOES) for that price. I'm still going to hold out for a 600mm f/4 L IS II. Its only $1200 more, for 2.25x more subject magnification.

I'm still going to hold out for a 600mm f/4 L IS II. Its only $1200 more, for 2.25x more subject magnification.

A 7d and a 300/4 for even less is an option, kinda. I'm not a wildlife shooter, but if you're birding do you really need to zoom back to 200mm on a $11799 lens? It seems most wildlife shooters I see are toting a 600/4 and TCs combination. I've used my 200/2 on the odd bird if I'm out shooting kid pics, and I can tell you 200 is too short for any bird in the wild, works well for tame deer, but useless for timid tiny birds.

This puppy damn well better perform like a sun of a gun (and, according to Andy Rouse, it DOES) for that price. I'm still going to hold out for a 600mm f/4 L IS II. Its only $1200 more, for 2.25x more subject magnification.

I've been thinking about this for quite a while now (since I would be buying only by Christmas this year or spring next year) ... 600 f/4 OR a 200-400 giving me 560 f/5.6.

I've basically come to the same conclusion that a 600 f/4 will better suit my needs for shooting birds. I guess if I were shooting wildlife and/or sports, the 200-400 with the inbuilt 1.4x TC would probably make more sense.

Logged

I took a hiatus from CR for a year and a half. The discussions haven't changed much. Excellent information is still being shared while people bitching about Canon cameras are still bitching and haven't moved on to Sony

I'm still going to hold out for a 600mm f/4 L IS II. Its only $1200 more, for 2.25x more subject magnification.

A 7d and a 300/4 for even less is an option, kinda. I'm not a wildlife shooter, but if you're birding do you really need to zoom back to 200mm on a $11799 lens? It seems most wildlife shooters I see are toting a 600/4 and TCs combination. I've used my 200/2 on the odd bird if I'm out shooting kid pics, and I can tell you 200 is too short for any bird in the wild, works well for tame deer, but useless for timid tiny birds.

Most professional bird photographers use either a 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6. Art Morris frequently uses his 600mm f/4 L IS II with the 2x TC III on a 1D X. With a 7D, I'd probably use the 600mm with the 1.4x TC III, as it would be similar in focal length (1344mm vs. 1200mm). The big reason to get as much focal length as you can is for birds out on water...Grebes, Ducks, Loons, etc. They can often be quite a ways off shore, and filling the frame is tough.

1.) Why did Canon raise the price of other lenses too? 500,600,800... are about 500-800$ more expensive overnight. I think the writer of the review is telling us some truth: Canon wants to milk the cow (us costomers) as much as possible.

2.) Are there alternatives for the 500,... lenses? Sigma? Half of the price. How good are they?The Canon lens will be better, of course. But how much better? Can I see it on my picture hanging on the wall behind me ?

I wrote 2011 an letter to one of the big German photo-magazines, if it would be possible to test other 3rd party lenses too. But they refused, because Canon and Nikon could refuse sending lenses for testing.

1.) Why did Canon raise the price of other lenses too? 500,600,800... are about 500-800$ more expensive overnight.

2.) Are there alternatives for the 500,... lenses? Sigma? Half of the price. How good are they?

1.) Not as far as I can tell. The 300 - 600 II lenses haven't seen a price change in several weeks, and they're a couple to a few hundred cheaper than at launch. They did all see a big increase in between announcement and launch - but that was a 12-18 month interval, and IIRC there were currency issues then.

2.) The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is reportedly very good, although not quite the IQ of the 300 II. But longer offerings from 3rd parties don't come close to the Canon supertele lenses.

1.) Why did Canon raise the price of other lenses too? 500,600,800... are about 500-800$ more expensive overnight.

2.) Are there alternatives for the 500,... lenses? Sigma? Half of the price. How good are they?

1.) Not as far as I can tell. The 300 - 600 II lenses haven't seen a price change in several weeks, and they're a couple to a few hundred cheaper than at launch. They did all see a big increase in between announcement and launch - but that was a 12-18 month interval, and IIRC there were currency issues then.

2.) The Sigma 120-300/2.8 is reportedly very good, although not quite the IQ of the 300 II. But longer offerings from 3rd parties don't come close to the Canon supertele lenses.